Lords Show Why We Need Them

The House of Lords have long been dismissed as an anachronism in this modern age. Appointed, not elected, its members were seen as unaccountable to the omnipotence of the British voters and, therefore, it was argued, the entire House should either be abolished, or simply elected. The last Labour government tried mightily to bring about this ransacking of the ancient constitutional arrangement of the people's House of Commons and the Peer's House of Lords. Unwilling to countenance that anything was beyond his election-and-power-winning spin machine, Tony Blair set his sights on Lords' reform and managed to expell nearly all hereditary Peers, in favour of appointed members. Now the merits of Lords' reform - whether it has gone far enough, or too far already - is a worthy topic in itself, but it's not the topic of this post.

No, the reason for this post are the issues at stake in the debate now raging in the Lords about the proposed referendum on voting reform. Most conservatives hoped that David Cameron's ascend to the doorstep of 10 Downing Street would be the end of ill-considered constitutional meddling. After all, the Conservative Party is usually most hesitant to carry through reforms of the ancient constitution. But us small-c conservatives hadn't counted on the Lib-Dems joining the government and being thrown the bone of a referendum on introducing the AV voting system. Mr. Cameron then compounded the matter by tacking onto the referendum bill is demands for boundary changes and a reduction of the number of Commons seats.

Having introduced this hybrid bill the Government set about whipping its Commons majority into supporting it, which given that both the Tories and the Lib-Dems got something they wanted out of it, shouldn't have been much of a problem. Nevertheless it took the controversial measure of 'guillotine motion' - a procedural order cutting short the time allocated for debate - to get to an aye vote. But unlike the Commons, the Lords have no such procedure and are now showing they do not stand ready to be run over rod-shod. And time is of the essence: if the bill does not get approved before February 16th, there will be no referendum on the desired date of May 5th.

So with the Government wanting the bill to pass, and a sizeable part - if not a majority - of the Lords wanting to at least decouple the referendum part from the boundary and number of seats part, the Upper House is being kept in sessions. They have been at it straight since 3.38 pm yesterday and have so far debated two out of more than a hundred proposed amendments. The Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde is already accusing the Labour Lords of using dishonourable delaying tactics:

'The opposition have dragged their feet. They've had their fun." He added: "The situation has become urgent because the Labour Party has decided to go on a marathon go-slow since we started the committee [to consider the bill]."'

But Lord Falconer, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lords has rejected this, saying: "This bill is motivated by party politics... It has been introduced without public consultation or pre-legislative scrutiny." And he is completely right in saying so.

Linking up two unrelated matters in a single bill is base trickery intended to making it impossible for people to oppose it, since rejecting one part you don't want means also rejecting something you have previously stated publicly you do support, leaving you open to charges of flip-flopping. Seeing as I don't support either part of this bill I have no qualms whatsoever is saying I support Labour Lords in their efforts to at least decouple the bill.

As the Upper House the House of Lords is there precisely to give proper consideration to bills that have been rushed through the Commons. It is a House of reflection not of politicking and I believe that it's current make-up - that of unelected, and therefore independent members - is very-well suited to this role. To open the Lords to election would be to lose this vital instrument of careful consideration. The Lords would be whipped into line for fear of losing their seat at the next election and would thus go along with whatever the government wanted. As it stands now if the government introduces a mistake-riddled bill, it might be spotted before it comes law and not afterwards, when all the wrong it causes has already been unleashed on the public.

So hurrah for the Lords! Hurrah for standing up for wisdom and scrutiny! May they keep at it for as long as it takes!

Labour Big Beasts (and Me) Against Voting Reform

In May, Britons will be going to the poll in the first nationwide referendum for 36 years. No, not on anything to do with EU treaties, something all three main parties promised to hold referenda on at one point or another. Instead they will decide on whether to change the centuries-old First-Past-the-Post voting system to something called Alternative Vote (AV). AV is not the first choice of any proponent of voting reform. Nick Clegg called it a 'miserable little compromise' and the referendum is the outcome of exactly that, a compromise hammered out to get the Lib Dems to support the Tories and thus get David Cameron into Downing Street.

That no one really wants AV is shown today by a number of Labour grandees emerging from Westminster Palace to join the no campaign, against the will of their leader Ed Milliband. Margaret Beckett, the former Foreign Secretary, and Lord Reid of Cardowan, the former Home Secretary, Lord Falconer, former Lord Chancellor, and Lord Prescott, former Deputy Prime Minister, now stand alongside Conservative heavyweights William Hague, the current Foreign Secretary and Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary in opposing reform. With Tory members of the Cabinet on this side, only the Lib Dems appear to be in full support of the measure. But we always knew they were such opportunists that even a 'miserable little compromise' will do.

I myself am opposed to voting reform. First Past the Post has worked perfectly well over the years and tends to result in a clear winner, something the British voter appreciates greatly. Even the five day long coalition negotiation after the last election was too long for many voters. So why would they wish to reform te system in a way that will favour smaller parties and thereby lead to a greater likelihood of coalitions and compromise among parties? The current system has also been adapted to suit the British voting landscape and the politically beneficial link between constituency and MP is best maintained by keeping it. And if the objection to First Past the Post is that it is not proportional than AV is not a solution - the votes of the minority will still not matter -, only Proportional Representation would be.

What worries me about today's articles by Ms. Beckett and Lord Reid is that they are decidely negative. Instead of arguing about what's good about First Past the Post, both former ministers have eyes but for what's bad about AV. I'm afraid that negative campaigning will have the effect of driving voters away. Being negative is never pretty and a positive message is always better appreciated. It may be good to start negative, because it is aggressive and let's one set the narrative, but sooner or later, voters will want to hear not why they should reject AV, but why they should retain First Past the Post.